From the iberian peninsuna it would be awesome to have Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar "El Cid Campeador" as a kind of Saber with a strange knight of owner, both his swords are legends in Spain, as also King Saint Ferdinand III of Castile, claimed by a pope as invincible champion of Jesus Christ

Fsn saber is still alive and possesses a physical body. She then passes on to Avalon. The version of her that ends up in the throne of heroes is just a straightforward heroic spirit. After that it differs on a case by case basis. Archuria is just og heroic spirit saber with a modified spirit origin due to Scathachs runes. Latoria is a completely separate individual who lived a different life. Etc.

And even if it wasn't, the situation in Grand Order is extremely special. I'd fully expect King Arthur to be the kind of Heroic Spirit that would lend itself to the cause even after Last Episode, because it's the right thing to do.

CQB is the weakness of every explosives character in every game except junkrat. They’re generally defensive or good at pushing buildings. Have you ever dealt with danger close noob tubers in MW2? The CQB is the only place they can’t arm their grenade launcher in time. Junkrat now doesn’t have to worry about any of that. He just annihilates everything in a CQB situation except MAYBE Genji (whose deflect is a joke now to smart McCree’s and Rats) can possibly make him fear his own explosives and Zarya.

The only way it's similar to One Piece is in the use of the word "pirate", lol

MC is a kind of wimpy office guy who's thrown out of his world and is forced to adapt to the circumstances. The real star of the show is Revy, the co-protagonist, a hard to kill badass with two guns and a bad attitude. There's also Dutch, a (comparatively) level-headed ex-American soldier and the brains of the operations and Benny, the tech guy who's kinda like the MC, but has also seen waaaay more shit. They operate on a Thailandese city that's frequented by criminal rings and stuff, and there are a couple of important characters as well among the Chinese and Russian mafias.

Isekai Izakaya had way better animation and solid artstyle compared to Isekai Shokudou. Izakaya had a storyline that connected several of it's characters to an end plot scenario, while Shokudou was only a collection of stories with no intertwining (cept of course for the short story of Aletta & Sarah). The characters in Izakaya although a bit simplistic, feel like actual characters, the ones in Shokudou are just cutout cardboards of a single dish.

Probably the only thing that stands out on Shokudou are the waifu material, and that's not really a compliment.

Modern anime isn't produced in full HD, save a few exceptions (like KyoAni productions). They air at TV in Japan in 720p, so it's usually not worth it. CR and similar services receive the file straight from the studio, which is 720p, and they upscale it for the 1080p release.

So, if you watch it on a 1080p screen, it's the exact same thing. The work your player does upscaling the 720p file on your side is the same as the work done by CR, with the disadvantage of a heavier file in the 1080p case. Those files exist for devices which can't handle the processing load, like some smart TVs. Your PC probably can, though.

If it was the tits, the shot would have been focused a bit higher. I think it's to highlight the fact that it's the school's uniform, and that it fits with her proportions. The glasses seal the deal: "yep, it's definitely her".

Also, she drinks from a mug normally IIRC. The weird part is that she uses a beaker to heat up the coffee. So, the second focus would have meant "she's doing this at school".

It's probable, because my course is normally in French, and so he misspoke a bit when explaining in English, but then I'm not sure how to explicitly define the accepting states.

From L0, the accepting states are f such that f is in F. Okay.

From L1 we have, via the general construction of d', that a string s is accepted if it terminates either in (f, 0) or (f, 1), according to my TA, as he said that "it cannot read more than 1 error" (which I don't wholly get). But yeah, if it reads more than one input incorrectly then it should still be in (q, 1), so I don't know how to resolve it.

He's saying that by inductively/iteratively appending {0, 1}, that we can treat it for all k, but I don't see how it's accurate in going from L0 to L1.

Sorry if I've just been repeating my confusion, as it seems that way after having written it.

I think you're getting confused because they're telling you to do induction on a problem that can be done directly, since your k is fixed for the problem. So, just by constructing the automaton that works for k you're done. This is probably why your TA just told you this version, where what's missing is the inductive step. Let's take a look at a direct version first.

Let's do this by generating copies of the automaton, with each copy having number of errors associated. All copies are internally wired exactly the same as the original automaton, and we're going to add a few more transitions that move between them. Every time you read an "error" (thus increasing the Hamming distance by 1), you "move over" to the next copy: if the transition (q0, q1, a) exists, then it will also exist for a single copy of the automaton [((q0, 0), (q1, 0), a)], and it will generate additional versions for everything that's not a [((q0, 0), (q1, 1), b), for instance].

Also, note that the final copy of the automaton (the one with k errors) should not have the additional transitions. The example you're showing, as a base case, works for k = 1. This means there's no transition going from any (q,1) to a (q,2) because the states with 2 don't exist.

So, the prompt says "L' is the set of words w at a distance not greater than k from L." This means we're allowing a maximum of k errors in the word compared to one in L. The automaton is supposed to read the word sequentially. If it's like any word in L, it stays on the 0-error states. If at some point it reads something it shouldn't, it will accept it anyway but move to the 1-error states. Note that it can work with the errors because we added the transitions that make this possible, but these transitions are absent in the last layer. So, what happens if you already have k errors and read another one? Hint: since we're adding transitions for inputs that are already handled, this automaton is nondeterministic.

The part "not greater than k" is what defines the accepting states. If you make one mistake and move to the 1-error states, and then never do it again, you'd want to accept because of what the prompt says. You still need to make sure the rest of the word sticks to the structure of L, and that's why we copied the whole automaton: if qf was the accepting state in the original automaton and its new version is (qf,0), then (qf,1) should also be accepting, to let the words with 1 error be accepted. We also want to let the words with 2 errors through, and with 3, and all the way up to k.

Yeah, I think that I mustn't've fully gotten all that he was saying. It makes sense to say that d'((q, i), a) = {(d(q, a), i)} u {(d(q, b), i+1 | b is in E} and have F be (f, n) such that n <= k.

Well, the proper answer that I got was to have Q be the states for 0 errors, and then Qk (the states for up to k errors) to be Q x {0, 1}k, but I don't see why that can't be condensed into the previously mentioned one

Either way, I had contacted quite a few sources including my professor and eventually found an explanation that has helped. Thank you, and hopefully I do well on the midterm tomorrow.

The thing is, your TA probably likes the inductive version more. But both are correct. In his version, you'd have showed that for k = 1, L' is regular. So, you then use that L' as the starting point and apply the construction again to get a L'' that's also regular, and then keep going.

Well, as long as you got it, it's fine. Good luck on your midterm! If you have any other question, you can ask me as well.

You should be able to create an algorithim that gets the users MAL and shows scored, compare the shows they really liked to those that have similar features like genres, settings, studios, directors/writters.

It fits, but that is not the origin. Kind of how "C9" didn't originate from players being killed on point.

Edit: Honestly surprised to see people who have not heard the misuse of C9. C9 historically means "voluntarily leaving the objective unnecessarily which incurs a loss." However, C9 has been misused ever since it began by players who were not avid viewers of the pro-scene. C9 has effectively been watered down to mean anytime someone leaves point, whether via death, stuns, force, player intervention, or personal negligence.

Togashi most likely knows what he's doing, and so far he hasn't made any mistake with his characters and plotlines. Terrorsandwich might be one (how do you convincely take out of the picture a character that might be stronger than Meruem?), but the scenario is so volatile, he might have everything planned already.

Hussie threw stuff around and wrote himself into a corner, and then introduced retconning as an in-universe mechanic and used it with reckless abandon. And I believe that his attention to the story faded away as the comic entered its final stage.

Togashi is also a way better planner. Everything introduced until now has made complete sense, and it's clear he thinks explanations and consistency are important. Hussie left a lot of things in the dark, which might have backfired on his writing.

This is coming from someone who absolutely adores everything up to Act 6 (and an important part of its first half).